SQUAD

A "KSP Loading..." Preview: The Rockomax RE-L10 “Poodle” Engine Revamp

Recommended Posts

I really like it. The Poodle was always an enigma. Super-useful and a mainstay, and visually distinct but ... well ... it was ugly. I like the changes and look forward to my large vacuum landers having them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the new engine designs...  and would prefer that just the new versions and old versions are allowed to continue to exist together.  I hate the idea of losing parts that had a completely different look.  These new designs are very nice, but looking less and less kerbal-ish.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a long time coming, the old design never fit in visually- now the best engine in the game is actually good looking :) Thanks for keeping the low profile too

Edited by Waxing_Kibbous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RoverDude said:

It's not an unknown color for engine bells ;)

Image result for lr-91 rocket engine

:O

Hey... I've actually HANDLED that EXACT engine! That's at the Aerospace Museum of California! I was a docent there back in 2009-2010.

 

Back on topic, though... LOVE the new design. I've barely used the Poodle for some time just because it's so damned ugly compared to the rest of the stuff available. This, though, will absolutely wind up getting used... it's gorgeous! :wub:

Edited by MaverickSawyer
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the new design.  I've always hoped that if the Poodle ever received a make-over it would be a dual chamber engine.  However, the one thing I would hope for...

5 hours ago, RoverDude said:

That's the single variant as of now.  With the gimbal range, things get a bit snug with all of the hardware, and the bells together take up about 2.1m of space.

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

The engine frame rotates, not individual nozzles.

...would be a bare version.  Players make all sorts of contraptions with engines in weird places, but I guess if the entire frame rotates like the LV-TX87 Bobcat engine, that might pose a challenge.

Still happy with it.  :)

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

A compact version - you could rotate the second engine by 90 degrees, nest them together and end up with four engine bells in a cross shape  :D 

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it! i just think the colour doest look that good.

 

also we will get variants?  it should have variants like the Mastodon engine i think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks quite nice. Are the combustion chambers and bells going to be hooked up with an emmisive texture, like we've been shown on the new Spark model, before release (and for that matter, would an ablatively cooled nozzle extension, as I assume the coloration of the new model's bells is supposed to suggest, even produce much in the way of visible radiation under normal operating conditions)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For myself personally I'm okay with the new engine. My only concern is that the engine bells looks a bit too red/burnt color. I am gonna kinda miss the old Poodle with its nice shrouded appearance but eh I guess I'll have to live with new things if I update.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RoverDude said:

The engine frame rotates, not individual nozzles.

 

4 hours ago, Lupi said:

As for roll control, if you look at the model, the gimbal hardware is for the assembly as a whole, with those hydraulic/pneumatic/whatever struts connecting the ring to the engine assembly, so probably no individual roll control on the nozzles.


I'm eyeing details from the preview pic and feeling a bit burned. I've been sick lately, so pardon my lack of attention previously, but now that those details do have my attention... I want to wail about those short-comings of having 2 engine bells with the exact same control authority as a single-engine design. What? Why is this a good idea? I understand it's a marvel of engineering and all that, but this is rocket science we're talking about here! (Please see @sh1pman's shared pic on page 2.)

Now, I'm not one of those KSP'ers that have to have it all as realistic as possible, but I really feel like this engine could be a lot more useful if it were made similar to the "Twin Boar," or others that have multiple engines which gimbal independently of one another when exercising rotational control authority. One could imagine the feasibility of navigating the cosmos (or landing, of course) without the need of other reaction control systems.

But to put it even more simply: why, in the name of the Kraken, would you use a single-engine hydraulic gimbal on a multi-engine system? That's really messing with my head right now.

@SQUAD @RoverDude https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150008246.pdf
There's a .pdf loaded with relevant RL-10 info. I hope the team will consider it at least. There's even gimbal joint and hydraulic hinge placement diagrams.
You already gave the whole engine mount a gimbal, so you really only need one more actuator to induce rotational control authority. 

Bill found a use for it. Y'all like flight sims, right? 
l5uAYFs.png?1
:ph34r:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

1.6 is officially my favorite update ever. The new engine looks sick, and would totally use.

A salute to the team! Love ya!

bGTe79q.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not Poodle. ;.; It's Bobcat. The new is worse than the old. :huh: But you can make this reconizable by painting nozzle black, cutting one engine, and PLEASE GIVE IT A ROUND BIT!!! IT WILL BE NOT POODLE AFTER THIS!!!!!!!! :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if it does have 2 engines, adding roll functionality would be useful.

 

Edited by Xurkitree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all those saying that “the old one was better”: no, the remake is objectively better in every way. I’ve been waiting for Poodle to receive a proper model since the day I learned how rocket engines work. The original model wasn’t even remotely resembling a vacuum-optimized engine, it fits better for a super-high pressure, low efficiency Eve ascent engine, or something like that. The remake is keeping it as useful for landers as it was before, and doesn’t make anyone who knows anything about rocket engines look at it through facepalm. If you prefer the old one, it’s pure nostalgia talking in you. It’ll pass.

Differential gimbal and bare variant would be nice, but it’s good as it is.

Edited by sh1pman
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

-snip-

29 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

Actually, if it does have 2 engines, adding roll functionality would be useful.

A few things to note:

An engine is generally determined by the amt of turbopump assemblies/power packs that make it go, not the amount of combustion chambers/nozzles. It's why things like the RD-107, RD-170, RD-180, and so on were single engines despite having multple chambers. (As for why i'm only naming russian engines here, well, the US figured out big chambers (F1 and such) where Russia figured out more chambers. Different means to the same end.) As such, the poodle is still one singular engine, as such, just with dual chambers. 

More topically, russian upper stage engines like the RD-0110 and RD-0124 had four chambers. In addition, from what i was able to read and even more relevant to the subject matter, the RD-0124 does not individually actuate its nozzles for gimbal; it uses a structure much like the Poodle does here, where the whole frame is manipulated by those struts.

While I agree roll control might be neat, engines like the Poodle do really exist and it's not wildly infeasible for an engine like this to lack roll. Most upper stages and landers  (at least, the ones I can cook up) would have reaction controls anyway, and we also have the torque wheels to play with. 

8 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

If you prefer the old one, it’s pure nostalgia talking in you. It’ll pass.

Agreed here, though there's also an argument to be made for preserving 'character.' Like, I would love if they added the 4-way symmetry.... thingies, back to the Rockomax Brand Adapter in some way, as well as grey variants for the flat ones.

I was trying to think up an idea for a rounded tankbutt shroud for the new Poodle as both a callback to the old mode's curviness, and because then it would look like a centaur tankbutt kinda. That, and it'd also probably satisfy the people who want a shrouded variant/boattail/what have you? Problem is, the poodle is really squat.

1323px-Centaur_rocket_stage.jpg

with this i just mean the hemispherical part, i can add the greebles myself if i wanna put batteries, monoprop tnaks, cubesat storage, etc back there.

Edited by Lupi
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

[snip]

INteresting stuff... totally gonna read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

A disgrace! It should be on nozzle!

Why? It makes a lot more sense for it to have two. The old Poodle’s nozzle was way too small for a vacuum engine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Why? It makes a lot more sense for it to have two. The old Poodle’s nozzle was way too small for a vacuum engine.

So make it bigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

So make it bigger?

One of the things that people use the Poodle for is a lander engine, because it’s short and can fit under landing legs. If you made the engine bell bigger (and therefore longer)  you might remove that useful feature. Having two nozzles means that you can keep the compact profile while still having it as a realistic-looking vacuum engine.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

So make it bigger?

7 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

One of the things that people use the Poodle for is a lander engine, because it’s short and can fit under landing legs. If you made the engine bell bigger (and therefore longer)  you might remove that useful feature. Having two nozzles means that you can keep the compact profile while still having it as a realistic-looking vacuum engine.

As far as i can gather, all of the revamps have to fit into the same dimensions as the original parts. So, the mk2 landercan is the same size now as before, the sparks, adapters, the pods, rockomax tanks, 1.25m tanks, anything. Making the poodle longer wasn't an option in keeping with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now